Local News

CEPEP workers protest outside company’s headquarters

03 July 2025
This content originally appeared on Trinidad Guardian.
Promote your business with NAN

Se­nior Mul­ti­me­dia Re­porter

rad­hi­[email protected]

De­spite promis­es that they will be re­hired and giv­en one month’s salary while the Gov­ern­ment con­ducts an au­dit in­to im­prop­er Com­mu­ni­ty-Based En­vi­ron­men­tal Pro­tec­tion and En­hance­ment Pro­gramme (CEPEP) con­tracts, for­mer work­ers staged a protest at the com­pa­ny’s Ste Madeleine head­quar­ters yes­ter­day.

Shout­ing, “We want we mon­ey,” the work­ers and con­trac­tors called on Gov­ern­ment to com­plete the au­dit quick­ly and re­hire them be­fore the start of the new school term in Sep­tem­ber.

The work­ers said the abrupt can­cel­la­tion of hun­dreds of con­tracts last Fri­day had left them in lim­bo, and they hoped that Cepep of­fi­cials would ex­plain when they would be re­hired.

When they went to speak to of­fi­cials, how­ev­er, the se­cu­ri­ty of­fi­cer shut the door on work­ers and the me­dia. A man­ag­er lat­er came out and apol­o­gised. He told the work­ers that he un­der­stood their plight but said he did not have an­swers to their ques­tions.

Speak­ing to Guardian Me­dia af­ter­wards, for­mer CEPEP work­er Joanne Lawrence said, “We’ve been ter­mi­nat­ed by our con­trac­tor and we don’t know what is go­ing on. We just here for an an­swer.”

Pub­lic Util­i­ties Min­is­ter Bar­ry Padarath stat­ed last week that con­tracts were ter­mi­nat­ed due to dis­crep­an­cies and im­prop­er ap­provals, with over 300 con­tracts deemed in­valid. The con­trac­tors were re­port­ed­ly col­lec­tive­ly re­spon­si­ble for some 10,500 work­ers across the coun­try.

How­ev­er, af­fect­ed work­ers yes­ter­day said the sud­den move has left them with­out in­come and with­out a plan.

“My con­tract was signed in April 2025,” said con­trac­tor Crevor­dor Piper.

“They say the con­tracts weren’t valid, but this wasn’t fair. They want to pay us off and leave us to pay the work­ers. Are they avoid­ing pay­ing NIS? It is not fair.”

He ad­mit­ted, though, that his con­tract was signed weeks be­fore the April 28 Gen­er­al Elec­tion and that he had cam­paigned po­lit­i­cal­ly. He al­so said he nev­er had a CEPEP con­tract pri­or to the one signed be­fore the elec­tion.

When asked if that was not a dis­crep­an­cy, he in­sist­ed that the ter­mi­na­tion was un­fair, de­clar­ing: “Every­body cam­paigned.”

Piper sug­gest­ed le­gal ac­tion might be con­sid­ered, de­pend­ing on how the mat­ter pro­ceeds. “Once every­body is in­volved, we will do it. This is not just for me. This is for every­body.”

Some CEPEP work­ers, many of whom are par­ents and sole bread­win­ners, said they are now un­sure how they will man­age day-to-day ex­pens­es.

Taryn Per­ry­man said, “We have lives too. I have bills. I have a mort­gage. I have my grand­chil­dren to see about. They need to give us a prop­er an­swer. Why did they even do that in the first place?”

Told that the Gov­ern­ment had promised to pay a month’s salary to the af­fect­ed work­ers as an in­ter­im mea­sure while the au­dit is con­duct­ed, some of the af­fect­ed work­ers agreed the au­dit could be done.

How­ev­er, An­tho­ny Gookool, who worked in the Re­form area, said work­ers should be re­hired as soon as pos­si­ble.

“I have a four-year-old in preschool. Every term I pay $1,500, plus trans­port. Af­ter a month, then what? I still won’t have a job,” he added.

Kurt Nico­las, an­oth­er work­er, said, “They say we’re get­ting a month’s salary, but af­ter that, what are you telling us? We need clar­i­ty on when and how they are go­ing to do it—whether be­fore or af­ter the month. Or be­fore school opens.”

The work­ers al­so voiced con­cern about how the is­sue has been han­dled, call­ing the sit­u­a­tion a cri­sis for work­ing fam­i­lies.

Nico­las al­so raised men­tal health con­cerns.

“Some peo­ple don’t know how to deal with this. Land­lords don’t want to hear about a pend­ing in­ves­ti­ga­tion. Schools don’t want to hear about a pend­ing in­ves­ti­ga­tion. Your stom­ach doesn’t want to hear about a pend­ing in­ves­ti­ga­tion,” he added.